Reading Windows

Okay here is a hypothetical scenario.

Joe webmaster wants to develop ASP.NET web apps and deploy them to a windows machine running .NET and IIS for medium to low yield website(s).

Joe webmaster knows that Windows XP is capable of running .NET with IIS reasonably well.

Joe webmaster also knows that Windows 2003 Server can also do the same thing.

What solution would Joe webmaster pick? Assuming Joe took the appropriate actions (installing firewall, appropriate security updates and such to make either solution safe) what is the differences between the two solutions besides a hefty price tag for the latter choice?

What I'm most curious about is the underlying differences between the two choices from a technical standpoint. Let's put aside security concerns and just talk core differences between an XP solution and a 2003 Server solution running just IIS/.NET and say MySQL for database serving.

just talk core differences between an XP solution and a 2003 Server solution running just IIS/.NET and say MySQL for database serving.

XP = probably the same core as of Win2k, 2k3 = newer core, directly based on win2k, developed some steps further.

if you'd want to run XP, I'd suggest XP Pro, as its nearer on a server solution than the home edition. Else: If you can get Win2k as patched up as possible (does somebody out there have the latest SP (I think it's SP6) for Win2K? :D), then that should be your choice. Of course, a Win2k server edition.

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

As I understood it XP Home is not capable of running IIS and does not ship with IIS on it's cd.

As I understood it XP Home is not capable of running IIS and does not ship with IIS on it's cd.

Yes, XP Home is missing IIS, but NO: it IS capable of running IIS. You just need to change some stuff (according to ct - some issues / weeks ago they told us how to totally legal create a 'XP HomePro' and later on, a 'XP HomePro Lite' system). ;)

Who needs IIS, there's always XAMPP and - esp. for your needs - Xitami!

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

The purpose of IIS is for ASP.NET

Let's put aside security concerns and just talk core differences between an XP solution and a 2003 Server solution running just IIS/.NET and say MySQL for database serving

AFAIK there wouldn't be much difference for that purpose. 2003 server contains additional goodness for running and administrating large network domains, but none of that is relevant to serving up websites.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

2003 server contains additional goodness for running and administrating large network domains, but none of that is relevant to serving up websites.

I'm right with Jaz here.
The only question is, is XP's TCP/IP stack crippled somehow? I know Microsoft loves to do this to their non-server OSes, but I'm not sure about XP. Should be easy to find out tho.
Also, support and bugfixes for XP will probably be discontinued earlier than that for Win2k3. I don't know if that's a concern for you. Other than that, if you already have XP I don't see anything that justifies the hefty price tag of a Windows 2003 licence.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

The only question is, is XP's TCP/IP stack crippled somehow? I know Microsoft loves to do this to their non-server OSes, but I'm not sure about XP.

To my knowledge, it only appears to be crippled in a fashion to prevent the use of raw sockets (a primary method of causing YN flooding). With SP2, there is a limit on the number of outbound connection initiation attempts allowed at one given time (an attempt to slow down worm spreading).

I'm not sure about other limitations, but the licence agreement states that you aren't supposed to have more than 10 inbound connections at a given time. However, if this limitation existed, P2P software wouldn't have as much penetration.

With SP2, there is a limit on the number of outbound connection initiation attempts allowed at one given time

Aah, you learn something new every day. Thank you.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

I don't know if that's a concern for you.

The scenario is hypothetical. I was just posing this question because I could not put a thumb on any real differences from the stand point of running just ASP.NET and IIS for small volume web serving.

I suppose the real benefit of using 2k3 over XP is that you get IIS 6.0 while XP only has version 5 if my memory serves me correctly.

Now the thought of the stack being limited is a very real possibility that I really hadn't thought about.